Sunanda Bhandare,j. ( 1 ) RULE D. B. ( 2 ) SINCE a short point is involved we proceed to decide the writ petition finally today itself. Learned counsel for the parties have no objection. ( 3 ) THE petitioner who is registered with the Employment Exchange was given a call letter by the respondent on 18. 6. 1983 and was appointed on daily wages as Operator (Eandm) on 29. 6. 1983. On 1. 3. 1984 the services of the petitioner were terminated. The petitioner agitated against the order of termination by way of representation. However, his representation was rejected on the ground that no vacant post was available in the cadre of Operator (Eandm ). However, the respondent had in the meanwhile invited applications from departmental Khalasis for the post of Operator (Eandm) vide letter dated 17. 5. 1984. The petitioner, therefore, filed a claim against his wrongful termination before the Additional Labour Commissioner. The parties arrived at a settlement before the Additional Labour Commissioner on 28. 4. 1986. The terms of the settlement were as follows: "1. The management agrees to offer fresh appointment on daily wages basis to the workman from the date he reports for duty. 2. The management further agrees to consider the workman for regular appointment as and when regular vacancy becomes available subject to his meeting the job specification and satisfactory performance. 3. The parties agree to report compliance of the settlement within a fortnight from the date of settlement. " ( 4 ) THE respondent resumed his duty w. e. f. 14. 5. 1986 again as a daily wager in the post of Operator (Eandm ). Some dispute arose regarding payment to be made to the petitioner towards his wages and, therefore, a query was raised by Assistant Accounts Officer on 6. 11. 1986. In reply to the said query the Director (Personnel) confirmed by way of office note dated 13/14. 11. 1986 that the petitioner was working against the regular vacancy and his services will be regularised against the existing vacancy as and when the ban is lifted. The petitioner however continued as a daily wager till date and, therefore, he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that he be regularised as per the settlement between the parties on 28,4. 1986. The petitioner however continued as a daily wager till date and, therefore, he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that he be regularised as per the settlement between the parties on 28,4. 1986. ( 5 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the settlement itself the petitioner had to be considered for regular appointment asand when regular vacancy became available subject to his meeting job specifications It was submitted that for the post of Operator (Eandm) job specifications requires technical work and knowledge, matriculation, five years experience in the handling E and M plants. Maintenance knowledge of different types of I. C. Engines and Electric Motors. The petitioner possess all these qualifications and there was a regular vacancy available as admitted by the Director (Personnel)in his office note dated 13/14. 11. 1986. Thus the petitioner is entitled to be regularised from 1986 itself. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner though is a Matriculate does not have other necessasary qualifications inasmuch as though he was appointed as Operator (Eandm), in fact he was not performing the duties of an Operator. It was further submitted that there was no regular vacancy in general category available in the year 1986 and the petitioner can be regularised only in a general vacancy and not in a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe vacancy. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner could not therefore, have been regularised in the year 1986. ( 7 ) WE find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. We find that in the office note dated 13/14. 11. 86 the Director (Personnel)had specifically stated that the petitioner was working against a regular vacancy. There is nothing on record to show that as on 13/14. 11. 1986 there was no regular vacancy available in the general category. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent it is nowhere stated that the regular vacancy in general category was not available in the year 1986. Moreover, we find that there were regular advertisements issued in the Employement News in respect of the vacancies for the post of Operator and also office memorandums were issued for filling up the posts from amongst the Khalasis. Moreover, we find that there were regular advertisements issued in the Employement News in respect of the vacancies for the post of Operator and also office memorandums were issued for filling up the posts from amongst the Khalasis. Thus, it is clear that a regular vacancy was available at least on 13/14. 11. 1986. As regards the job specifications are concerned, we find that this question was gone into by the respondent itself in an inquiry which was held against one Shri Badal Chand. Some disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Shri Badal Chand in the year 1987. One of the allegations against Shri Badal Chand was that he had appointed the petitioner on daily wages without sponsorship from Employment Exchange and that the petitioner did not fulfil the job specifications. An Inquiry Officer was appointed and after a detail inquiry it was found that the petitioner fulfilled the requirements of qualifications and experience for appointment to the post of Operator. The respondent accepted the report, though Shri Badal Chand was awarded censure on some other ground. ( 8 ) IT is repeatedly held that non-regularisation of daily wagers for long period is not proper particularly if the regular vacancies are available. In the present case the respondents were bound to regularise the petitioner in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties since a regular vacancy was available on 13/14. 11. 1986. ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to regularise the petitioner w. e. f. 13/14. 11. 1986. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits. No costs.